It is well-known that Plato’s Republic introduces a tripartition of the incarnate human soul; yet quite how to interpret his ‘parts’ 1 is debated. On a strong reading, they are psychological subjects – much as we take ourselves to be, but homunculi, not homines. On a weak reading, they are something less paradoxical: aspects of ourselves, identified by characteristic mental states, dispositional and occurrent, that tend to come into conflict. Christopher Bobonich supports the strong reading in his Plato’s Utopia Recast: (...) His Later Ethics and Politics. In his The Brute Within: Appetitive Desire in Plato and Aristotle, Hendrik Lorenz agrees with Bobonich that the parts of the soul are ‘the subjects or bearers of psychological states’. Any ascription to my Mental Conflict of the opposed, weak view needs qualification: my Plato is highly ambivalent.2 But my intention here is less to defend an earlier self – though I predict failing to escape it – than to reconsider tripartition in the Republic in the light of Bobonich’s virtuosity and Lorenz’s lucidity. They persuade me of the inexhaustibility of the text, notably within Book 4 from 436 to 439. About these pages we may indeed disagree: they find them decisive in favour of their view, as I don’t. When Socrates remarks, ‘Let us have our understanding still more precise, lest as we proceed we become involved in dispute’, he was not anticipating the dissensions of interpreters. (shrink)

This paper argues that Epictetus’ ethics involves three features which are also present in Aristotle’s discussion of akrasia in the Nicomachean Ethics: 1) A major problem for agents is when they fail to render a universal premise effective at motivating a particular action in accordance with that premise. 2) There are two reasons this occurs: Precipitancy and Weakness. 3) Precipitancy and Weakness can be prevented by gaining a fuller understanding of our beliefs and commitments. This comparison should make clear that (...) akrasia is certainly not absent from Epictetus. Rather a very Aristotelian understanding of why we fail to act in accordance with what we take to be in our own best interests remains at the center of his ethics. (shrink)

Argument and literary form, and how they both relate to each other, are crucial aspects of any interpretation of the Platonic dialogues. Plato the author and Plato the philosopher always work hand in hand in that Plato the author tries to serve Plato the philosopher. It is, therefore, an appropriate principle for approaching the study of Plato’s philosophy to take into account the literary aspects of the dialogues and to ask how Plato’s literary art of writing could possibly support his (...) philosophical message and, for instance, to consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy. In the present paper, I argue that the performance of the characters plays an important role in this context. I discuss various passages in the Laws which analyse the weakness of the will and I compare what Plato says there with the performance of Alcibiades in the Symposium. I conclude that the passages in the Laws can be read as a kind of commentary on Alcibiades’ behavior and I consider what this relation means in the context of the debate about developementalism versus unitarianism in Plato’s philosophy. (shrink)

La filosofía política platónica está atravesada por una marcada preocupación epistemológica, sobre cuya base Platón adopta el así llamado “intelectualismo socrático”, lo cual implica un rechazo tajante del actuar incontinente o _akrasía_. En el presente trabajo intentaremos mostrar que el propio Platón llevó adelante una revisión de dicha posición, ante todo debido a un cambio profundo en su concepción de la naturaleza humana en el diálogo _Leyes_.